4 ms·

No one would lift a finger for him. Russia just watched. The Chinese too. They may be allies in words but in the end each dictator just care about themselves. J

No one would lift a finger for him. Russia just watched. The Chinese too. They may be allies in words but in the end each dictator just care about themselves. Just like how Trump wouldn’t help any ally unless he got something out of it.

brendoelfrendo 10mo ago
Of course they didn't. While I can't imagine Russia is exactly happy that it lost an ally in the Western Hemisphere, this kind of action is very much aligned with Putin's multi-polar worldview where the great powers leave each other to play empire in their respective spheres of influence. It helps justify things like invading Ukraine. I can imagine some in the Chinese military are over the moon right now, taking notes on how to force regime change in Taiwan.
- mrguyorama 10mo ago
  More importantly, Putin didn't really have an option to help. They sent over like, maybe a couple Anti Air systems? But they really couldn't spare that many in the first place! It's not like Russia can sustain serious power off the coast of the US. The most he can do is complain. What's Russia going to do, sanction the US?
nonethewiser 10mo ago
Power wins in anarchy. International relations are anarchy. There is no actual international law.
- KPGv2 10mo ago
  > There is no actual international law. There is, of course, both private and public international law. You don't know what you're talking about.
  - Dansvidania 10mo ago
    I think it was meant in a "international law is a farce" sort of rhetoric
    - nonethewiser 10mo ago
      Yes. More specifically I would say international law is law in name only. It's not really law at all. It's akin to a child asserting rules on a playground with their peers. There is no enforcement mechanism. In reality what we call international law is more like a mutually agreed upon policy, which can also just not be agreed upon at any moment. In fact many countries do not agree to them. There is no government agency or enforcement mechanism over states - that is what makes them states by definition. I am always shocked by how controversial this take can be.
      - Dansvidania 10mo ago
        It’s complicated. While it’s true that there is no direct enforcement, systems of sanctions and embargos have been used to indirectly enforce these agreements. Whether this is ultimately effective is not obvious, but I think “international law does not exist” is a simplistic take, with all due respect for your opinion (which I understand and partially share)
        Dansvidania 10mo ago
        I doubt we are about to see those mechanisms being used to penalise the US for this latest behaviour though. I don’t think other UN or NATO states are strong enough to play this game with the US yet.
        victorbjorklund 10mo ago
        And Germany wasn't punished for their behavior until much later.
        nonethewiser 10mo ago

brendoelfrendo 10mo ago

Of course they didn't. While I can't imagine Russia is exactly happy that it lost an ally in the Western Hemisphere, this kind of action is very much aligned with Putin's multi-polar worldview where the great powers leave each other to play empire in their respective spheres of influence. It helps justify things like invading Ukraine. I can imagine some in the Chinese military are over the moon right now, taking notes on how to force regime change in Taiwan.

mrguyorama 10mo ago
More importantly, Putin didn't really have an option to help. They sent over like, maybe a couple Anti Air systems? But they really couldn't spare that many in the first place! It's not like Russia can sustain serious power off the coast of the US. The most he can do is complain. What's Russia going to do, sanction the US?

nonethewiser 10mo ago

Power wins in anarchy. International relations are anarchy. There is no actual international law.

KPGv2 10mo ago
> There is no actual international law. There is, of course, both private and public international law. You don't know what you're talking about.
- Dansvidania 10mo ago
  I think it was meant in a "international law is a farce" sort of rhetoric
  - nonethewiser 10mo ago
    Yes. More specifically I would say international law is law in name only. It's not really law at all. It's akin to a child asserting rules on a playground with their peers. There is no enforcement mechanism. In reality what we call international law is more like a mutually agreed upon policy, which can also just not be agreed upon at any moment. In fact many countries do not agree to them. There is no government agency or enforcement mechanism over states - that is what makes them states by definition. I am always shocked by how controversial this take can be.
    - Dansvidania 10mo ago
      It’s complicated. While it’s true that there is no direct enforcement, systems of sanctions and embargos have been used to indirectly enforce these agreements. Whether this is ultimately effective is not obvious, but I think “international law does not exist” is a simplistic take, with all due respect for your opinion (which I understand and partially share)
      - Dansvidania 10mo ago
        I doubt we are about to see those mechanisms being used to penalise the US for this latest behaviour though. I don’t think other UN or NATO states are strong enough to play this game with the US yet.
        victorbjorklund 10mo ago
        And Germany wasn't punished for their behavior until much later.
      - nonethewiser 10mo ago